The square root on the V2 equation should contain 2GMe. However the value I calculated for V2 is correct. My mistake!
@ruedigersens9888
Жыл бұрын
I was interested in the orbital speed during the Hohman flight right at the point, which has the same distance from both foci which should be one semi major axis a right? I have calculated 6403 m/s. Is that right? If you could help me I'd be delighted! This point is in english the minor apex, I think.
@sbkarajan
29 күн бұрын
How did Voyager go to Jupiter in 1.5 years? With Hohmann transfer, it should have taken 33 months.
@shoot-n-scoot3539
10 ай бұрын
Difficult subject expressed clearly is the mark of a good instructor. Job well done Sir.
@INTEGRALPHYSICS
10 ай бұрын
Many thanks!
@ftumptch86
10 ай бұрын
I wish I'd had Kerbal at uni as I really struggled with orbital mechanics. Now it makes sense and so do the equations. 😮
@boulama
Жыл бұрын
this is the best video explaining Hohmann transfer i’ve watched! thank you!!
@INTEGRALPHYSICS
Жыл бұрын
Glad it was helpful!
@WETDOGBR
10 ай бұрын
But don't you have to consider the resistance of the air as well?
@duvud0853
7 ай бұрын
@@WETDOGBR No the atmospheric drag at 6 500 000m is negligible
@azknightedits
5 ай бұрын
@@duvud0853because it's beyond the Karman line right
@Imagine_Beyond
Жыл бұрын
Great video. I have been playing Kerbal space program for awhile and I wanted to know how to calculate the delta V required to get somewhere. This really help!
@randomaccount6146
Жыл бұрын
Based
@Bunta1987qwerty
11 ай бұрын
I have a midterm in 3 days, and the lectures really haven’t been very clear to me. This cleared up everything, and in less time than I spend in class. Thank you.
@INTEGRALPHYSICS
11 ай бұрын
Glad it helped!
@8BitZ0mbie
9 ай бұрын
It’s like a study guide piece of art. Really cool
@INTEGRALPHYSICS
9 ай бұрын
Thanks! I had tons of fun thinking through how to illustrate this one clearly.
@andreao.9171
Жыл бұрын
Thank you very much for this video! I'm German and didn't understand any of the German videos quite as good as yours, so that's a huge compliment for you :).
@INTEGRALPHYSICS
Жыл бұрын
Glad I could help!
@ruedigersens9888
Жыл бұрын
geht mir genauso!
@TheBierp
10 ай бұрын
Very interesting and informative. My most practical takeaway? A desire for my handwriting to be that pristine! 😀
@INTEGRALPHYSICS
10 ай бұрын
Let your hand slow down and you'll be amazed at how much your writing cleans up... and thanks!
@rocketpsyence
5 ай бұрын
Awesome. Having a midlife crisis and refreshing my college knowledge and this is a great overview. Wish I could have had this back when I was in school. Also idk if it's a good way to think about it but I used to think about the smaller velocity farthest from the planet in the elliptical orbit in terms of Kepler's 2nd law - it makes sense that something would be traveling slower to sweep out the same area in the same amount of time that it would in the same time near perapsis
@ricoreyes6044
9 ай бұрын
You may be confident, but are you "give an 11 minute lecture on orbital mechanics armed only with a single sheet of paper and a fineliner marker" confident?
@ronron7763
9 ай бұрын
i was looking for such simple and brief explanation being mech engineer. Very awesome, thank you.
@INTEGRALPHYSICS
9 ай бұрын
Glad it was helpful!
@vanamonde2
9 ай бұрын
Stayed and watched this because it was all drawn by hand! Excellent work! Oh. I'm a space head too so the orbit talk was very well done!
@INTEGRALPHYSICS
9 ай бұрын
Thank you! Cheers!
@hypernova4997
10 ай бұрын
I've been looking for an explanation like this for ages. Thanks!
@INTEGRALPHYSICS
10 ай бұрын
Glad it was helpful!
@matthewfelgate
3 ай бұрын
Thanks for sharing because this was well explained. Intuitively I always thought the second burn would have to be a retro burn to slow the rocket down into the second orbit. I was wrong. You learn something new every day!
@INTEGRALPHYSICS
3 ай бұрын
i held that same misconception for a long time. you have to remember though, the satellite is gaining height and therefore slowing down, no different than a bicycle coasting up a hill.
@charleshill506
10 ай бұрын
Flat earth earthers have left the chat.
@hrvstmusic
10 ай бұрын
They were never in this chat 😅
@gavargas22
10 ай бұрын
What chat?
@Variety_Pack
10 ай бұрын
I have expanded my mind and come to realize that earth may be a sphere, but space is definitely flat.
@yatzeegamingop
9 ай бұрын
@@Variety_PackSpace is a volume ?
@ScalarYoutube
9 ай бұрын
@@Variety_Packyou're technically right, space is neither concave not convex, it's almost perfectly flat on average
@aldenconsolver3428
10 ай бұрын
Excellent, subscribed immediately. I do have one minor whine though, if you could write a bit bigger it would help me a good deal. Thank and hope to see more of your work soon.
@INTEGRALPHYSICS
10 ай бұрын
Noted! I had alot I wanted to cram on one page here, maybe next time I will try zooming in on certain parts as I go.
@efremmarzatico4443
9 ай бұрын
if you are watching on a phone, by pinching on the screen you can zoom on parts of the video you're interested in
@ShinjiCarlos
9 ай бұрын
Amazing channel, mate! Thanks a lot for the wholesome explanation!
@INTEGRALPHYSICS
8 ай бұрын
Thanks for the praise. Happy to help!
@harriehausenman8623
7 ай бұрын
Beautifully produced and clearly explained. ☺
@hvanmegen
10 ай бұрын
Beautiful explanation, beautiful drawings.. very nice! Subbed!
@INTEGRALPHYSICS
10 ай бұрын
Thank you so much 😀
@ChaineYTXF
Жыл бұрын
ME for mechanical energy and ME for mass of earth is confusing. I use E for total energy, T or K for kinetic, V for potential. You have a perfect handwriting for such a format and your explanation is very clear. Thank you.
@INTEGRALPHYSICS
Жыл бұрын
You are correct, Me and Me are confusing. Thank you for the input, it is much appreciated.
@wyrdlg
10 ай бұрын
It helped me a lot when I envisioned the "gravitational spacetime funnel" accordingly
@INTEGRALPHYSICS
10 ай бұрын
It used to be department stores and shopping malls would have plastic vortex funnels you could roll coins down. IMO, best visualization orbit al mechanics ever.
@alankott3129
10 ай бұрын
A very straightforward explanation. Thanks!
@INTEGRALPHYSICS
10 ай бұрын
Glad it was helpful!
@chyldstudios
11 ай бұрын
Wow, very illuminating. Well done.
@INTEGRALPHYSICS
11 ай бұрын
Thanks! As someone pointed out, I messed up the placement of the radical near the end Nevertheless, this video was a fun mental exercise working out something many of us take for granted.
@davidwillmore
10 ай бұрын
Things i learned intuitively playing Osmos.
@brookestephen
10 ай бұрын
i guess it's even more complicated when you have fuel with a specific impulse that requires continual engine firing for several seconds to change speed1
@marijandumancic4259
10 ай бұрын
Great explanation delivered in a pleasant manner, thanx!
@INTEGRALPHYSICS
10 ай бұрын
Glad it was helpful!
@Woody615
9 ай бұрын
Love it. However, to me (and me alone), it was a little dry. I would think that adding in some real world examples would have helped, such as how Gemini VI used this to change orbit to meet up with Gemini VII. Or how Armstrong and Aldrin, in the upper stage of the Eagle, used this to rendezvous with Collins in the Columbia. I always love real world examples. As I said, that's just me. Keep up the good work.
@INTEGRALPHYSICS
9 ай бұрын
Great suggestion!
@ti84satact12
9 ай бұрын
@@INTEGRALPHYSICSKISS Keep it simple. THIS VIDEO IS FINE AS IS!
@eliasvalle1863
Жыл бұрын
best teacher ever
@andremunoz3939
6 ай бұрын
Terrific channel. I think we could arrange a tour for your students of the Sierra Space mission control in Louisville CO. Would that be of interest?
@theincredibleuniverse4062
Жыл бұрын
Thank u for ur clear explanation. Much worth stuff. Keep it up.
@fjficm
4 ай бұрын
absolutely superb lecture
@INTEGRALPHYSICS
4 ай бұрын
Many thanks
@footstoolofgodflatearth2933
7 ай бұрын
can you do a video of a person sending a bowling ball into orbit from a point on earth? any point. What would the step by step process take to put it into orbit? At what angle and velocity would it take to get it done? Thanks.
@nicholusradcliffe3290
11 ай бұрын
When you calculated V_b1 and V_b2 you cancelled out the satellite mass. However, you then calculate the mass of propellant that must be burned to achieve the dVs. So, is it necessary to recursively calculate the dVs again followed by the propellant mass until the solutions converge?
@INTEGRALPHYSICS
11 ай бұрын
It sounds like you are looking for the 'Rocket Equation' it uses a differential eqn to solve for the dV using just a few rocket parameters.
@nicholusradcliffe3290
11 ай бұрын
@@INTEGRALPHYSICS right so the rocket equation has two mass terms m_0 and m_f for the total mass of the rocket with propellant pre and post burn, respectively. If I am interpreting the terms in our dV equation correctly, one of the mass terms you cancelled is m_0 and the other corresponds to m_f. So, the cancellation in your derivation is a simplification that holds for very high I_sp engines, like ion drives. But it may be necessary to apply a recursive solution (or a more complex one) for lower I_sp engines, like chemical rockets to account for the significant difference between m_0 and m_f. Is that correct? Appreciate your response, btw.
@csgauss
Жыл бұрын
really good, thank you
@INTEGRALPHYSICS
Жыл бұрын
Glad you liked it!
@mr_piet3101
7 ай бұрын
@all, how do I calculate the delta v needed to get in to space, like due gravitational speed loss?
@KurdstanPlanetarium
10 ай бұрын
Very interesting and useful! Thanks
@INTEGRALPHYSICS
10 ай бұрын
Glad it was helpful!
@aravindakannank.s.
9 ай бұрын
i guess v2 prime is also sqrt of GM(1/r2 -1/(r1+r2) )
@jgoemat
9 ай бұрын
Very well explained, thank you!
@INTEGRALPHYSICS
9 ай бұрын
Glad you enjoyed it!
@ThomasHaberkorn
10 ай бұрын
A joy to watch
@INTEGRALPHYSICS
10 ай бұрын
Glad you liked it.
@flwi
7 ай бұрын
What a great explanation! Well done!
@INTEGRALPHYSICS
7 ай бұрын
Thanks! This video was a fun one.
@vincentdargere
7 ай бұрын
You rounded Earth mass to 5.99*10^24 kg but I find 5.9722*10^24 everywhere (rounded to 5.97). Is it deliberate? That's not much, but the results are slightly different with this data.
@piotrkryowicz7932
Жыл бұрын
In the equation for velocity 2, shouldn't the 2GMe be under the square root? As it is in the equation for velocity1.
@INTEGRALPHYSICS
Жыл бұрын
Yup... My mistake!
@younesidsouguou7287
Жыл бұрын
Yes, just spotted that and got confused for a while but thank you anyway for the flow of logic with all these phenomenal equations 🙏🏻
@schobihh2703
10 ай бұрын
quite interesting. I could follow the topic, but everything was quite compressed. I missed the general idea, how to get there. I.e. from orbit 1 which is E1 energy state, to a transition energy state ET,the ellipse, and use the , to Orbit 2, E2 state. Each time the system increases energy by increasing the velocity. You explained everything, but the idea became not clear to me, because there was to much focus for me on the formulas ...
@edoziz5964
Жыл бұрын
Amazing video and explanation…thanks a lot!!
@INTEGRALPHYSICS
Жыл бұрын
Glad you liked it!
@eonasjohn
9 ай бұрын
Thank you for the video.
@INTEGRALPHYSICS
9 ай бұрын
You bet!
@klam77
9 ай бұрын
Hi, one question: WHY do some countries choose a series of hohman transfers sending satellites and craft into outer space (like INdia, taking 5-6 weeks to send observer to moon via 6 hohman orbits) vs Russia going direct to moon in 2-3 days, if given that in a potential field the energy required is independent of the path taken, being dependent only on the start and end points of the potential field? Why is it cheaper and more economical to use mulitple hohman xfers versus direct thrust all the way?
@BHARGAV_GAJJAR
10 ай бұрын
Nice drawings Btw you forgot to mention that the two burns are selected because they would minimize delta V or kinetic energy thats why we do Hohmann transfers otherwise you are free to do orbital jumps especially if you have a nuclear powered spacecraft.
@ComradeOgilvy1984
10 ай бұрын
My intuition says the Hohmann transfer is energetically optimal. I wonder if that is actually provable? Are there other ways that could achieve the new orbit for the same energy expenditure, at least on paper? As a practical matter, we need to be able to build rockets that can offer big thrust for a short period of time to get things into low orbit at all. Such chemical rockets do not do gentle thrusting efficiently. So the Hohmann transfer is attractive based on the technology on hand. As you point out, if we have a very different kind of thruster available, such as a nuclear powered one, we might achieve better results with a small thrust engine that operates for a long period of time.
@BHARGAV_GAJJAR
10 ай бұрын
@@ComradeOgilvy1984 global optimality of two thrust maneuver in coplanar orbits exists in the literature there is even a simpler proof.
@idjles
10 ай бұрын
@@ComradeOgilvy1984this is the cheapest path for getting there in one orbit. If you have lots of time you can fire the rockets for a short burn at perigee, wait a period and fire again, slowly raising apogee - this is how the Indians went to the Moon in August - the Russians did a direct Hohmann and had too much delta-v at apolune , dropping their new perilune below the Moon’s surface. If you consider 3 body problem, there are even cheaper ways - and they can be very weird and squiggly - computers are used to find these. A tour of the Jovian Moons does lots of complex pathing using AI and smart people to find optimal paths.
@idjles
10 ай бұрын
Hohmann is the cheapest with 2 “instantaneous” burns. If you have an ion drive or nuclear drive, You can leave it on all the time and you have very different trajectories.
@klam77
9 ай бұрын
@@idjles very intriguing. I don't understand how the series of hohman xfers saves energy? do you have a reference or primer to read on the "cheapest path" you mention?
@redweg47
2 жыл бұрын
You are doing this so well! Thank you so much!!!
@INTEGRALPHYSICS
2 жыл бұрын
Thanks!
@er.deepakguptaandhisworld783
9 ай бұрын
Very informative
@INTEGRALPHYSICS
9 ай бұрын
Glad it was helpful!
@user-um2tz8oe9p
3 ай бұрын
What about if your 'ship' is on an orbit of Earth and you want to do Hohmann transfer?) In order for this to work we need to fire engine at the specific point at orbit
@INTEGRALPHYSICS
3 ай бұрын
Outside influences like the moons gravity aside; This works for objects orbiting the Earth.
@Astronomyguy123
27 күн бұрын
Shouldn’t radians be introduced to the Hohmann transfer?
@willrounthwaite4831
2 жыл бұрын
Dropping another comment to help you with the algorithm! Ps did you change your title? I thought this was part 1/3 "INTEGRALPHYSICS: Hohmann Transfer Orbit Part ⅓ - Find Both Delta V’s (Basic Physics)"
@INTEGRALPHYSICS
2 жыл бұрын
I'm currently caught up working through a series of Wheatstone bridge circuit videos. I figured it would be best to call it 1/2 until I get around to writing and recording the last video. Thanks for keeping up with the channel, I appreciate the suggestions!
@mattfinish-kg3bl
10 ай бұрын
So how would you achieve a lower orbit, given that it has to be a faster orbital speed, and yet if you speed up you go outwards?
@INTEGRALPHYSICS
10 ай бұрын
It may seem counterintuitive but... slow the satellite down, then slow it down some more; and in the end it will wind up going faster.
@duvud0853
7 ай бұрын
If assuming air resistance is zero it is possible to use this in the case of landing and take-off? In the case of Moons.
@duvud0853
7 ай бұрын
Also, how do I calculate the required DV if my periapsis is in the Moons sphere of influence but my apoapsis is not? Do I assume I'm just in the Moons sphere of influence since that is where I'll preform my burn?
@AlexandreEmanuelle
7 ай бұрын
Is this orbit you calculated there to move the vehicle on the R-bar?
@prodabber0222
Жыл бұрын
I think you forgot to square (GMe/r) in the kinetic energy equation, unless I am wrong because of some indistinct reason.
@MelioraCogito
10 ай бұрын
_“I think you forgot to square (GMe/r) in the kinetic energy equation, unless I am wrong because of some indistinct reason.”_ Watch the video again. Given: _v²_ = GMe/r _v_ = √(GMe/r) When he did the substitution in the kinetic energy equation, he used _v²,_ not _v_ : Ke = 1/2 · _m_ · _v²_ = 1/2 · _m_ · (GMe/r) I initially thought the same thing you did until I looked at his previous statements and realised my mistake.
@gokmachine
10 ай бұрын
How did you include reduction of mass of the rocket, when it is burning its fuel?
@INTEGRALPHYSICS
10 ай бұрын
The assumption in this solution is that the burn time is negligible when compared to the transfer time. Because of that approximation, the mass of the rocket is irrelevant.
@markusmenck4812
Жыл бұрын
well explained, thank u
@AbhinavKumarSahai
Жыл бұрын
Sir , the only force acting on the CannonBall is not only Gravity what about the thrust reactionary force , g is the only opposing force considering no drag outside the Atmosphere
@Miftahul_786
7 ай бұрын
After the ball is already expelled from the cannon there is no more thrust force acting on the ball. The ball does not accelerate forward (it still accelerates downwards) because the ball is already launched out of the cannon. There is nothing pushing the ball anymore like a rocket motor or something
@Dr.Kraig_Ren
10 ай бұрын
Nice video. ❤
@INTEGRALPHYSICS
10 ай бұрын
thanks!
@AmruMagdy
9 ай бұрын
اللهم اجعل تحرير فلسطين علي ايدينا بفضلك ياالله فاللهم استعملنا ولا تستبدلنا اللهم آمين
@elberttristanlie7651
2 жыл бұрын
Awesome video!
@INTEGRALPHYSICS
2 жыл бұрын
Glad you enjoyed it
@mr.ackermann807
Жыл бұрын
Quick question. About the maneuver what if you went straight up with your horizontal speed already there like an airplane climbing in altitude would you still increase your orbital altitude or what would happen?
@INTEGRALPHYSICS
Жыл бұрын
Yes, however firing a rocket perpendicular to the path of travel does not produce as large of a change in kinetic energy as firing a rocket in the direction of travel. (See the Oberth Effect)
@mr.ackermann807
Жыл бұрын
@@INTEGRALPHYSICS thank you. I'll look into it. My idea was when at orbital velocity instead of going faster and then recovering that speed once higher have a perpendicular force from a bottom engine under the craft to accelerate it between 1 to 6 gs upward to increase orbital altitude them once up there at the peak to either slow down for that new velocity or accelerate to higher speed to maintain new orbit. I was imagining a bullet firing for free fall aspect of it. Now what I'm trying to figure out is once at the higher orbit which is needed more or less speed.
@majidmedou472
Жыл бұрын
Thank you very much
@INTEGRALPHYSICS
Жыл бұрын
Happy to help.
@SailboatAqua
9 ай бұрын
Isn't it easier to do this using Kepler's Laws?
@INTEGRALPHYSICS
9 ай бұрын
My idea here was to start from the beginning at Newton's Laws and work out the burns for a Hohmann transfer. There are easier starting points (Keplers) and easier to use end points (vis-viva), but those seem a bit 'canned'. I wanted to do the whole thing using physics my 11th graders would be familiar with.
@vladimirfortushin7976
Жыл бұрын
Thank you for this explanation, really great! I'm doing a small project on my spacecraft's Hohman transfer until Mars' orbit, then slowing it down for orbiting it. So I consider only elliptical orbit with initial acceleration near Earth. As I see, to gain the needed orbit around Earth, we calculate acceleration using the Earth's mass, that's clear. Where I'm stuck - as my spacecraft starts at perihelion and reaches Mars at aphelion, the central celestial body of this maneuver is Sun. Thus can we calculate the needed initial acceleration using the Earth's mass, or it should be the Sun's mass in this case? Or here comes another formula as we have two celestial bodies? Thank you again
@INTEGRALPHYSICS
Жыл бұрын
Three bodies become more complicated. You still have the conservation of energy, however the conservation of angular momentum goes out the window because the earth and mars aren't in a perfect line with the sun so their gravitational pulls will produce torque relative to the sun.
@liotay98
2 жыл бұрын
thank you best explanation!
@INTEGRALPHYSICS
2 жыл бұрын
Thanks! Thats what I was going for. 😀
@simonejessen4932
Жыл бұрын
Can i ask you about how you apply the rocket equation???? i don't understand it and i need it for an assignment :)
@INTEGRALPHYSICS
Жыл бұрын
Here's the link to my rocket equation vid. kzitem.info/news/bejne/2mOVq55uh2WDmW0
@kaursingh637
4 ай бұрын
EXCELLENT= VERY GOOD -- PLEASE NAME BOOK-- THANK U SIR - AMARJIT - INDIA
@INTEGRALPHYSICS
4 ай бұрын
Not working out of a book on this. I just wrote down the lesson I gave to my students the previous day.
@wouterbaas3138
Жыл бұрын
Isn't this just the vis-viva equation but less simplified? You can solve all this easily with the vis-viva equation.
@INTEGRALPHYSICS
Жыл бұрын
You are correct on both points. However, most people accept the vis-viva equation as a 'magically appearing equation', with little understanding of its derivation. I wanted to derive a useful equation with reliance only on the physics a typical high school student would have seen.
@venkybabu8140
9 ай бұрын
So circle to circle links.
@INTEGRALPHYSICS
9 ай бұрын
Yup.
@MarsMatters
2 жыл бұрын
Thanks for this! This will help me with my upcoming video on transportation infrastructures to Mars :)
@INTEGRALPHYSICS
2 жыл бұрын
Glad it was helpful!
@dirkus3722
9 ай бұрын
Fine, I'll play KSP again
@INTEGRALPHYSICS
9 ай бұрын
Dude I love that game.
@huylam2217
9 ай бұрын
The size of your handwriting is too small. My eyes almost blow.😂😂
@yuri34544
Жыл бұрын
remove the music pls
@HAHb-zc2dp
9 ай бұрын
A Christian told me today gravity isn't real, it's not a law of the universe but morality is, even if humans didn't exist morality would 😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂
Пікірлер: 158